Mike Parker

Submitted photo

In response to Lawrence Wittner’s commentary, A government for the world:

For a professor of history, Lawrence Wittner has some fascinating views on how our world should be governed. Seeing a potential calamity arising with a second term for President-elect Donald Trump, Wittner would empower the United Nations to hold more sway over international affairs.

His views, unfortunately, showcase a dangerous credulity, both in his belief of the inherent “danger” of a second Trump term and his views of the U.N. as a benign organization on the world stage.

The U.N. has hardly succeeded in its mission for peace and has often done more harm than good.

Wittner cites, for instance, a study that posits the United Nations Development Programme could serve as a mechanism to generate more independent income for the U.N. This is the same organization that was recently accused of demanding bribes before distributing $1.5 billion in aid to Iraq.

Meanwhile, U.N. peacekeepers have been accused of rampant sexual abuse, as well as bringing a cholera epidemic to Haiti that killed an estimated 10,000 when deployed to provide “assistance” following the 2010 earthquake.

The reality is that the U.S., with its 39 years of Democratic presidents and 40 years of Republicans since 1945 has provided a check on global tyranny of the likes of Hitler and Stalin. The U.S. is far from perfect, but thanks to its people, it has proven to be remarkably resilient and generally a force for freedom.

Wittner is correct in his assessment that the world is an inherently violent place, and might does make right. Tracing humanity’s history until 1945 reveals brief moments of relative peace followed by outbreaks of regional conflicts.

During the course of the 1800s, the U.S. fought two wars against the Barbary states of North Africa, a second war against the British in 1812, a war against Mexico in 1848, a war against Spain in 1898, not to mention numerous conflicts with Native American peoples throughout the century, along with its bloodiest conflict in American history, the Civil War. At least the 1859 so-called “Pig War” was a bloodless battle (well, not counting the eponymous bovine) over the border between Washington State and British Columbia.

In the same century, the United Kingdom fought in a multitude of conflicts as it managed its globe-spanning empire, from the Napoleonic wars that started the 1800s, through campaigns in India, Crimea, China and throughout Africa.

However, all of these conflicts pale in comparison to the horrors of the first half of the 20^th century, with nearly 100 million lives lost during World War I, the Intra-war conflicts and World War II.

Far from the safety of his home in Waterford, New York, my great Uncle Albert was killed at the hands of a German sniper in Italy. Hundreds of thousands of American boys met the same fate while bravely fighting actual Nazis, who by December 1941 controlled virtually all of Europe and large swathes of northern Africa.

It was the combined forces of the allies, including Russian and Chinese boys and men, Americans, Brits, French, Canadians, Poles and numerous other nations’ sons and daughters who fought for freedom — sometimes their own, but often the freedom of others.

And then came a singular moment in global history, when the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The weapons ushered in the end of World War II, and forever changed humanity. With nine countries maintaining nuclear arsenals today, led by the U.S. and Russia, the world has essentially lived on the precipice of global disaster. Yet, the “hot” wars of the first 45 years of the 20^th century gave way to the 45-year Cold War, culminating in the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Conflict remains in the world. The Chinese civil war, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine and the Middle East all speak to our violent nature, but these conflicts, as unfortunate as they are, hold more in common with 19^th-century strife than the global wars of the early 20^th century.

What is the common thread? Is it an inept U.N. that has kept the peace? At best the U.N. has served as a public forum to air grievances. At worst, it has aided and abetted corruption, sexual abuse and tyranny. Wittner’s proposal to empower the U.N. is therefore beyond misguided, it is inane.

The commonality of relative peace in a post-World War II world (dotted with regional conflicts akin to 19^th century engagements) is the overwhelming presence on the world stage of a force for freedom. The British Empire of the 19^th century has given way to the American hegemony of the last 80 years.

We are far from perfect, but our influence on the world stage and our détente with Russia on the use of nuclear weapons has kept a fragile stability in place.

The greatest threat in the past 50 years to that stability has been the war in Ukraine, and the massive transport of cash and weapons to “bolster” Ukrainian forces against Russian aggression.

For Wittner to call Trump’s victory in the 2024 Presidential election a “slide toward catastrophe” defies logic. The war in Ukraine broke out during the Biden presidency. The Oct. 7 attack on Israel also occurred during Biden’s term in office. The withdrawal from Afghanistan that resulted in the deaths of 13 U.S. soldiers along with scores of Afghans (including children) and a return to chattel slavery for millions of women and girls also occurred during the Biden administration.

President Trump’s first term was not perfect, but it did not include any Russian invasions of sovereign lands. The president-elect has vowed to end the war in Ukraine and turn down the temperature on a potential nuclear holocaust. I would think Wittner, given his academic history, would be fully in favor of such a move.

But sometimes our prejudices prevent us from seeing what’s right in front of us.

Our American system isn’t perfect, but it allows for us to improve upon it. If we don’t like the way one administration governs, we can exercise our right to vote and install a new one (as Americans have done repeatedly over the last 80 years).

In no way shape or form has the U.N. proven itself capable of governing anything, nor do individual citizens of the world have any mechanism or political power to enact reforms within its halls.

I’d suggest Wittner continue to use his voice and his pen to hold our American government to account. After all, it hasn’t been the U.N. keeping the peace for the last 80 years.

Editor’s note: Do you have an opinion on this issue? We’d like to hear from you. Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.